who has to do a qualify shoot to get a license?

[allan f]

In Quebec we have to shoot at three targets at 10, 15, 20, 25,30 yards and hit three out of the five to qualify for a bowhunting permit.  I think the idea is a really good one (a little hard to screw up if you have a crossbow with sights) and I can't see it being to tough with a compound either.  

The targets are 2d animals and get bigger the further away you get ie deer at 10 and moose at 30.

What other systems are in place out there for bow license qualification?
Allan

[Tim Fishell]

Here in Michigan we have to pass a gerneral Hunters Saftey program before we can get a license of and kind.  Although I could see the benifits of having to qualify to bow hunt.

[ChuckC]

We have discussed this before on here.  Although it sounds nice, having to "qualify" is not, in my mind, a good thing.  Why  you ask ?  

Well, let's insert one scenario.   I am starting out.  I practiced real hard and I can shoot really well at 10 yards.   I fail the test miserably at 20 and 30 (and who is to say 40 and 50 won't crop up) and that means I don't get to hunt.

Now, I promise to keep my shots to my 10 yards but can't get the license.  Some "other guy" passes (remember... you mentioned sights and releases etc) but heck, they shoot out to 65 yards or better.  

How has that "test" failed me   and   the system.

I don't think tests are fair... period.
ChuckC

[Scooter Trash]

I agree with ChuckC on this.  

 A few years ago I helped the city qualify archers for the new city deer hunt.   The first couple years the test was score based.    There was a "PRO" Target shooter that showed up to qualify and try to post the top score.   He and I got into a discussion as to how it should have just been a profientcy (sp) test.   He ended up with the top score but when he left after our discussion about the people with lower scores not being allowed to hunt he was mad as hell at me and had steam comming out his ears when he left.

[laddy]

This kind of testing always reminds me of a compound shooter that came to me for help.  After winning trophies in a number of three d events, could not keep it together when a real deer was in front of him.  He would get buck fever and as he put it "punt".  He thought going to a longbow form would give him less to do and less to screw up.  Testing will not do anything except keep some good but nervous hunters and beginners out of hunting.  The proposed bowhunter programs in Iowa don't look all that promising either.  Supporters of it will turn out a fraternity of target shooters.

[chris_qc]

Having passed the Quebec proficiency test with my longbow, I was suprised to see some compound shooters fail the test. I think it only helps to weed out the "sunday shooters" that pull out their bows from the cobwebs the days prior to the season. We're not talking a FITA round here, just three arrows in a big vital zone (I think it's a circle that contains the lung, heart and liver area).

Too bad the new regs allowing crossbows during the bow season only require the theoretical part, not the abillity test.

Chris

[pdk25]

Mixed feelings on this one.  I think it could help the reputation of bowhunters with the general public, but most people have their minds made up already.  As far a from a responsibility standpoint I think it would be a good idea, but as others have pointed out, the test could be made ridiculously hard so as to greatly reduce the number of bowhunters.  I'm not sure what a minimum proficiency should be, but I think it isn't unreasonable that someone should be accurate to 20 yards before drawing on an animal.  That won't eliminate bad shots on occasion, but would certainly give archers motivation to practice.  On the other hand, I would hate to see the number of bowhunters decrease in this political climate for any reason.  Sorry, I can't make up my mind.

[vermonster13]

It will eliminate Trad Hunters. 30 yards is too far for a lot of people to be thinking of shooting and to make it part of a proficiency test will either keep them out of archery hunting or force them to compound/crossbow. 30 yards is much farther than most should be thinking of shooting while hunting regardless of the equipment they use especially when starting out but a test like this makes it look like it is ok. We don't need to be weeding hunters out, we need to be adding them if we want to keep hunting alive for future generations.

[chris_qc]

You got me thinking there, vermonster13. I tend to agree with you. Actually, the distances are 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 meters and the vital zone on the moose at 30m is about 24" in diameter. It did stop me from bowhunting until I had the time to commit to a lot of practice since I never shot a compound.

Chris

[pdk25]

I agree with vermonster13 that 30 is definitely too far for a proficiency test.  I also don't want to weed out hunters.  That being said, I thind we have some responsibility to minimize the odds of wounding an animal and not recovering. A great target shooter may get nervous and miss a shot, but it is unreasonable to think that someone who can't hit the target at 15 yards under range conditions will be a consistantly great shot under hunting conditions.  More wounded deer ruins our reputation with the antihunters and more importantly, with the nonhunters.

[vermonster13]

That is where the bow safety class comes in. I teach effective range and do a shooting safety test. I want to see how they handle the bow and actually hear someone say that a shot is outside their range. Teach about responsibility in the class and talk about how our actions effect our opportunities.

[vermonster13]

To give you an idea. Denmark has a proficiency test and to date only 7 trad shooters have passed that I know of. The national LB champion of a few years actually failed it.

[Tim Fishell]

Dave, I have to disagree.  The test that was talked about in the original post said it was 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 yards (or meters) but you only had to hit 3 out of the 5.  In my opinion people taking to the field should be able to hit the vitals at 10, 15, and 20 yards at least.  Before I could bow hunt my dad made me shoot until I could consistantly hold 9 inch groups at 20 yards with 6 arrows.  He would put a standard paper plate on the target and I would have to hit it will all 6 arrows.  The reason for this was that 9" is roughly the size of the kill zone on a deer.  Was it hard for me when I was 12?  Yeah it was but I am glad he did it and it made me realize just how big of an area I was trying to hit.  

Would something like this cut down on the number of hunters?  Maybe and probably yes.  But if they wanted to be out there doing what they love they would put the time and effort into making sure that they could pass the test.  And I am not saying you should make every body that wants to hunt be able to hit a paper plate at 50 yards.  But I am saying 20 and closer they should because not many people would have the will power to watch a deer or whatever game they are pursuing come into 15 yards and pass on it cause there effective range is 10.  

Sorry for getting long winded but that is my $.02

[Shawn Leonard]

Another problem with that is a guy can borrow a compound, practice a few minutes and than go take the test, than he goes out and hunt with a trad. bow. In NY if ya want to hunt special areas, such as NYC resivoir property and other state game preserves than ya have to pass a test. I believe it is 3 out of 5 in the kill zone at 15 yards. The scary thing is a lot of trad guys can't do that either. Shawn

[vermonster13]

Are you sure it isn't 3 out of five at each distance Tim?

Also to go along with Shawn's statement, they practice with a compound and sites at known distances and pass the test because of the pins and shooting on level ground at a target. Then they go hunt in a tree and miss or wound, the test does nothing but make some folks feel good and chase others away or to other means.

Next thing they do is push KE as a means for what is legal and what is not which the ATA would love because they could then legislate most traditional equipment out of hunting and sell more other "bows".

[Brian Krebs]

I agree with Vermonster !!

 I am totally against profeciency testing.

Its odd; but you could in some places qualify with a compound and then hunt with a trad bow. No doubt; there are a lot of target archers qualifying with their target bow; and then hunting with another compound. How many of us traditional bowhunters would have to qualify with each bow we MIGHT hunt with?

 Its cost and time prohibitive; and would require a lot of staffing issues.

 3 out of 5 means a 40% chance of wounding
(unless my math sucks).

 I have seen superior target archers totally miss at 20 yards on a live deer.

 But it is more and more an issue that we will be facing. If it came down to testing or no testing; I would argue that one arrow shot at one target - at whatever range the hunter feels he can hit a pie plate size target.  - that is how it works hunting.

[laddy]

One of the things that totally pisses me off about government intrusions like this, it is just one more liberty we loose. Namely are we a bunch of mindless sheep or are so many brainwashed into thinking that we can not think for ourselves?  It is easy to let others do your thinking for you, it is a bit harder to think for yourself.  It is time for every one to wake up and think for themselves.  I can best decide what kind of shot I can take, what kind of equipment to use, or whether to believe some BS or some profit engineered hype that is being shoved at me.  It is hard to impress me and even more difficult to pull my leg.  I am proud of my antisocial stubbornness, I think for myself.

[Brian Krebs]

Oh come on now Laddy; don't be ashamed; say what ya feel !! ( this sounds good in an Irish brouge).  :D

[Brushcop]

I'm reading your posts with great interest. I served 31 yrs as Tx game warden (survived-retired--save your hisses, heard 'em all...), heard just about every excuse or lie, saw the best to the worst of hunters, both archery and gun hunters. Mostly they were good folks--the best and I kid you not. Listen, I've seen far more horribly wounded deer out there caused by gun hunters not knowing their equipment than deer stumbling around with an arrow in the flank. Another point (first hand): Archers came on big time in Texas, then they took those same skills into the gun season: patience, clean shots, follow-up, processing of game, general ethics, etc., etc.

Lots of lies about archers out there as you very well know. I was partcularly glad as Texas got into the archery hunting scene, thanks to dedicated and organized archers, not a few being in our ranks as well. Proficiency test? Why? We don't have a "proficiency" test for hunting with a firearm. Hunter Education, fine, overall a good thing, there's an archery segment in that course too, maybe it could be expanded a bit.

Just keep using common-sense fellas, don't get into trying to "regulate" so much, once you open those doors for an agency to "regulate" something, watch out! Texas has recently proposed dropping the draw weight requirement altogether. Interesting. So, I wrote my former Dept. heads in Austin for the reasoning behind that. I couldn't really get an up-front answer but the gist seems to be "let's try it and see if the younger folks get interested and try it instead of over-regulating the sport, discouraging prospective hunters". Wow, kinda like, "let's treat hunters like they have a brain and see how it works". What a concept.

[HNTN4ELK]

After being a Bow Ed instructor here in Montana for a number of years initially I thought a proficiency level should be requisite for getting an archery license. Then I got to thinking about the state of mind of a new bowhunter.

What happens here is about 90% of the students in Missoula where we run about 350-375 per year through the program, don't even own a bow and because a shooting proficiency is not required, don't shoot at the field course.

In Montana we put about 2500-2800 people through the course per year, but we are only getting about half of that for new archery license sales. That tells me about half of the student do not buy an archery license, and after one year probably more than half of those who did buy a archery stamp, don't buy it after the first year....Why?   Because bowhunting is hard.

The natural curiousity of people leads them to the class, and they come away with a new perspective on bowhunting.

A proficiency in my opinion on a set of static targets is not really a good indicator of how a bowhunter might react in a hunting situation. Multiply the level of anxiety for a new bowhunter by the difficulty of the shot itself and no static demonstration can duplicate a true field condition.

Yes, practice and becoming proficient is part of the program, but it takes years literally to make a bowhunter. A twelve hour class and shooting a set of 3D targets only barely scratch the surface...only gives them a glimpse of what to expect.

For some programs, like an urban deer control hunting situtation, experienced bowhunters might be required to make a proficieny grade to demostrate equipment and accuracy. But for newbies I think it will dimenish recruitment in a big way.

Gary